Deforestation also threatens the pandas' food supply. Pandas feed mainly on bamboo, consuming up to 38 kilograms a day. Without enough forest area, the pandas will starve.
Deforestation ... Without enough forests, pandas will be starving.
Do both of the above two versions read well and convey the same senes? Thanks.
I would choose the first version. In a serious context, "starve" in continuous forms can convey the meaning "starve to death", e.g.
1. People in Africa are starving.
But "starve" (again, in continuous forms) can also convey "be very hungry", in an exaggerated, non-serious way, e.g.
2. I'm starving = I'm very hungry
3. I was starving = I was very hungry
This is less true of the continuous future; but the "very hungry" meaning does seem to interfere with your intended meaning, in your example #2.
Not a professional ESL teacher.